Revert "Allow using 'static lifetimes in functions (#3856)"
#3865
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This reverts commit b9ccb8f.
Liamolucko
approved these changes
Mar 2, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was actually thinking of finishing the job and disabling the 'cannot return references' error for exported functions so that plain &'static T would work; but since you mentioned in #3851 you want to make a new release soon I think it's better to revert this now and fix it properly later than release things in an incomplete state.
|
Hi @daxpedda and @Liamolucko Is there an open issue I can track for these changes? Many thanks! |
|
Cc #1187. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This reverts #3856. After some careful thinking about this PR, I don't think it achieves a whole lot.
While it actually enables one more valid signature (
fn foo() -> Option<&'static str>), it otherwise achieves little.Eventually the whole lifetime check should be removed, because we already do "lifetime checks" in the generated code, the check just improves the error message, but prevents some specific uses. So all in all I don't think its worth the tradeoff.